Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_6033_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Lumbar Anatomy
- •2.2.1 Vertebra
- •2.2.2 Intervertebral Discs
- •1: History and Rationale for the Minimally Invasive Lateral Approach
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Historical Approaches to the Lumbar Spine
- •1.4 Validation of the Technique
- •References
- •2: Biomechanics of Lateral Spinal Reconstruction
- •2.2.3 Facets
- •2.2.4 Muscles and Ligaments
- •2.3.1 The Neutral Zone
- •2.3.2 Bending Moments and Load Carrying
- •2.3.3 Lumbar Lordosis
- •2.4 Biomechanics of Lumbar Pathology
- •2.4.1 Lumbar Surgery
- •2.5 Lateral Lumbar Fixation
- •References
- •3.1 Goals of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery
- •3.2.1 Blood Loss
- •3.2.2 Decreased Infection Rates
- •3.2.4 Pain Control and Recovery
- •References
- •4: Costs and Economic Implications
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 The Costs of Spine Surgery
- •4.3 Comparative Effectiveness of the MIS Lateral Approach
- •4.4 Cost-Effectiveness of the MIS Lateral Approach
- •4.5 Future Directions
- •References
- •5: Workup and Diagnostic Testing
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Patient History
- •5.3 Physical Examination
- •5.4 Adjunctive Tests
- •5.5 Preoperative Evaluation of the Pain Generator
- •5.6 Radiographic Studies
- •5.7 Summary
- •References
- •6: Literature Evidence of the MIS Lateral Approach
- •6.1 Adult Spinal Deformity
- •6.1.1 Studies
- •6.1.2 Treatment Characteristics
- •6.1.3 Clinical Outcomes
- •6.1.4 Fusion
- •6.1.5 Complications
- •6.1.7 Conclusion
- •6.2 Degenerative
- •6.2.1 Studies
- •6.2.3 Operative Time
- •6.2.4 Length of Stay
- •6.2.5 Clinical Outcomes
- •6.2.6 Fusion
- •6.2.7 Complications
- •References
- •7: Selecting the Proper Patient for Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Spinal Deformity Surgery
- •7.1 Indications for LLIF
- •7.2 The MISDEF Algorithm
- •References
- •8: Positioning and Safety
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Positioning the Patient
- •8.3.1 Pressure Ulcers
- •8.3.2 Peripheral Nerve Injury
- •8.3.3 Rhabdomyolysis
- •8.3.4 Postoperative Visual Loss
- •References
- •9: Intraoperative Electrophysiologic Monitoring
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Anatomic Considerations
- •9.3.2 Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEP)
- •9.3.3 Spontaneous Electromyography (spEMG)
- •9.3.4 Triggered Electromyography (trEMG)
- •9.4 Patient Preparation and Anesthesia Requirements
- •9.6 Ongoing Monitoring
- •References
- •10: Motor-Based Monitoring During Minimally Invasive Lateral Spine Surgery
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.3 Motor-Evoked Potentials
- •10.4 Electromyography
- •10.4.1 EMG Limitations
- •10.5 Mechanomyography
- •References
- •11: Frameless Navigation
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Technique
- •11.2.1 Positioning
- •11.2.2 Image Acquisition and Registration to CaSN
- •11.2.3 Surgical Approach and Cage Placement with CaSN
- •References
- •12.7 Retraction
- •12.8 Shallow Docking
- •12.9 Oblique Approach
- •References
- •12: Techniques for Avoiding Psoas Muscle and Lumbosacral Plexus Injury
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2 Anatomy
- •12.5 Retroperitoneal Dissection
- •12.6 Electromyography
- •13: Single Versus Dual Incisions for Lateral Retroperitoneal Approach
- •13.1 Single Incision
- •13.1.1 Surgical Technique
- •13.2 Dual Incisions
- •13.2.1 Surgical Technique [1]
- •13.2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages
- •References
- •14: Lateral Transpsoas Retractor Technology
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 MaXcess® (NuVasive, Inc.)
- •14.3 Mars® 3V (Globus, Inc.)
- •14.5 Pipeline® (Depuy Synthes, Inc.)
- •14.6 Oracle® (Depuy Synthes, Inc.)
- •14.7 Aira® 3 (Stryker, Inc.)
- •14.8 Ravine® 3 (K2M, Inc.)
- •14.9 Veo® (Baxano, Inc.) [6]
- •References
- •15: Anterior to Psoas (ATP) Fusion of the Lumbar Spine
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 Indications
- •15.3 Contraindications
- •15.4 Equipment
- •15.5 Surgical Technique
- •15.5.1 Patient Positioning
- •15.5.2 Incision
- •15.5.3 Exposure of the Disc
- •15.5.4 Discectomy and Endplate Preparation
- •15.5.4.1 ALL Release
- •15.5.5 Cage and Plate Insertion
- •15.5.5.1 L5/S1
- •15.6 Discussion
- •15.6.1 History
- •15.6.2 Cages
- •15.6.2.1 Clinical Results
- •15.6.3 Retractors
- •15.6.3.1 Neuromonitoring
- •15.6.4 Psoas Retraction
- •15.6.5 Levels
- •15.6.6 Vascular Injuries
- •15.6.7 Nerve Injuries
- •15.7 ALL Section
- •References
- •16: Thoracic MIS Retropleural Access
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Anterior-Based Approaches
- •16.3 Posterior-Based Approaches
- •16.4 Lateral-Based Approaches
- •16.5 Surgical Technique and Anatomic Considerations
- •16.5.1 Preoperative Planning
- •16.5.2 Preparation and Patient Positioning
- •16.5.3 Surgical Approach
- •16.5.4 Postoperative Care
- •16.6 Outcomes Using a Minimally Invasive Anterolateral Approach
- •16.7 Advantages of the Minimally Invasive Lateral Approach
- •16.8 Limitations of the Minimally Invasive Lateral Approach
- •16.9 Summary
- •References
- •17: Psoas Muscle Management
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.3 Transpsoas Versus ATP
- •17.4 Traversing the Psoas Major
- •References
- •18: The Extreme Lateral Minimally Invasive Approach to Pure Degenerative Lumbar Disk Disease
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 The Rome Experience
- •18.2.1 Surgical Technique
- •18.3 Results
- •18.3.1 Demonstrative Cases
- •18.3.1.1 Case 1
- •18.3.1.2 Case 2
- •18.3.1.3 Case 3
- •18.4 Discussion
- •References
- •19: Lateral Approach for Spondylolisthesis
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Treatment
- •19.3 Surgical Technique
- •19.4 Outcomes
- •19.5 Complications
- •References
- •20: Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) for the Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD)
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.2 MIS Treatment Algorithm
- •20.3 Surgical Technique
- •20.3.1 Patient and Bed Positioning
- •20.3.2 Fluoroscopic Imaging
- •20.3.3 Access to the Psoas
- •20.3.4 Transpsoas Approach and Retractor Docking
- •20.3.5 Preparing the Disk Space
- •20.3.6 Maximizing Correction
- •20.3.7 Approach Through the Concavity vs. Convexity
- •20.3.8 Sequence of LLIF Instrumentation
- •20.3.9 Wound Closure
- •20.4 Outcomes
- •References
- •21: Neoplasia
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Clinical Features
- •21.3 Diagnosis
- •21.4 Primary Vertebral Tumor
- •21.4.1 Aneurysmal Bone Cyst
- •21.4.2 Hemangioma
- •21.4.3 Osteosarcoma
- •21.4.4 Giant Cell Tumor
- •21.4.6 Meningioma
- •21.4.7 Nerve Sheath Tumor
- •21.5 Surgical Treatment for Primary and Metastatic Spine Tumors
- •21.5.1 Open Surgery
- •21.5.2 MIS Lateral Approach
- •References
- •22: Minimally Invasive Lateral Spine Surgery in Trauma
- •22.1 Introduction
- •22.3 Indications for the Anterior Approach
- •22.4 Complications Associated with the Open Anterior and Posterior Approaches
- •22.6 Lateral MISS Techniques
- •References
- •23: Lateral MIS Surgery for Spinal Column Infections
- •23.1 Introduction
- •23.2.1.1 Indications
- •23.2.1.2 Contraindication
- •23.2.2 Technique
- •23.2.2.1 Preoperative Preparation
- •23.2.2.2 Operative Procedure
- •23.2.2.3 Postoperative Treatment
- •23.3 Clinical Outcomes
- •23.4 Complications
- •23.4.1 Approach-Related Complications
- •23.4.2 Instrumentation-Related Complications
- •23.4.3 Infection-Related Complications
- •23.5 Case Studies
- •23.5.1 Case 1
- •23.5.2 Case 2
- •Further Reading
- •25: Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Current Clinical Outcomes of Different Supplemental Fixation Techniques
- •25.1 Introduction
- •25.2.1 Case Example
- •25.3 Interspinous Fusion
- •25.3.1 Case Example
- •25.4 Integrated Fixation Fusion
- •25.5 Simultaneous Combined Anterior and Posterior Fusion
- •References
- •26: Anterolateral Fixation in LLIF
- •26.1 Introduction
- •26.3 When? The Indications for Supplemental Fixation
- •26.3.1 Reduced Bone Density
- •26.3.2 Facet Arthropathy
- •26.3.3 Deformity
- •26.3.4 Instability
- •26.3.5 Pars Defects
- •26.3.6 Cage Width and Levels
- •26.3.7 Adjacent Segment Disease
- •26.3.8 Previous Surgery
- •26.4.1 Lateral Fixation
- •26.4.2 Posterior Fixation
- •26.4.3 Combination Lateral and Posterior Fixation
- •References
- •27: Anterior Column Realignment
- •27.1 Introduction
- •27.2 Applications
- •27.3 Regional Anatomy
- •27.4 Surgical Technique
- •27.5 Potential Pitfalls
- •27.6 Complications
- •References
- •28: Subsidence in LLIF
- •28.1 Introduction
- •28.3 Rates
- •28.4 Risk Factors
- •28.4.1 Caudal Endplate
- •28.4.2 Level
- •28.4.3 Bone Quality
- •28.4.4 Cage Size
- •28.4.5 Bone Morphogenetic Protein
- •28.6 Prevention/Recommendations
- •28.6.1 Standalone Cages/Supplemental Posterior Instrumentation
- •References
- •29: Osteobiologics
- •29.1 Introduction
- •29.2 Autografts
- •29.3 Allograft Bone
- •29.3.1 Demineralized Bone Matrix
- •29.4 Ceramics
- •29.5 Bone Morphogenetic Proteins
- •29.6 Bone Marrow Aspirate (BMA)
- •29.7 Platelet Gels
- •29.8 Summary
- •References
- •30: Indirect Decompression
- •30.1 Lumbar Stenosis
- •30.2 Lateral Interbody Fusion
- •References
- •31: Approaching a Deformity from the Concavity Versus Convexity
- •31.1 Introduction
- •31.2 Concavity Approach
- •31.3 Convexity Approach
- •31.4 The Importance of L4/L5
- •31.5 Additional Considerations
- •References
- •32: Awake Lateral Lumbar Fusion
- •33: Managing and Preventing Vascular Complications
- •33.1 Introduction
- •33.3 Incidence of Vascular Complications in Lumbar Spine Surgery
- •33.3.1 Posterior Approach
- •33.3.2 Anterior Conventional Approach
- •33.3.3 Lateral or Extreme Lateral Retroperitoneal Transpsoas Approach
- •33.4 Surgical Features in Lateral Retroperitoneal Transpsoas Interbody Fusion
- •33.5 Preventive Measures of Vascular Complications in Anterior Lumbar Spine Surgery
- •33.5.1 Preoperative Period
- •33.5.2 Operative Period
- •33.5.3 Postoperative Period
- •33.6 Management of Vascular Injuries
- •33.6.1 Venous Injury
- •33.6.2 Arterial Injury
- •References
- •34: Managing and Preventing Soft Tissue Complications
- •34.1 Introduction
- •34.3 Retroperitoneal Injuries
- •34.4 Management of Complications
- •34.5 Prevention of Complications
- •References
- •35: Ileus and Gastrointestinal Complications
- •35.2.1 Neural
- •35.2.3 Pharmacologic
- •35.6 Fiscal Consequences of POI
- •References
- •36: Lumbar Plexus Injury: Lateral MIS Spinal Fusion
- •36.1 Introduction
- •36.2 Sensory Complications
- •36.2.2 Ilioinguinal Nerve (L1): SDZ1
- •36.2.4 Lateral Cutaneous Nerve (L2, L3): SDZ2
- •36.3 Motor Complications
- •36.3.1 Femoral Nerve (Dorsal L2–L4)
- •36.3.2 Obturator Nerve (Ventral L2–L4) and Lumbosacral Trunk (L4, L5)
- •References
- •Index

228
L.-m. Rong and L. He
insuffi cient, and the preoperative examination
indicated instability of spine, the posterior percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation is recommended. As the biomechanical study proved, it
maximizes stability after lateral interbody cage
placement. If the vertebral body is destructed
severely, it suggests to cross the infected area and
place instrumentation in the adjacent healthy vertebral body temporarily via posterior approach.
The internal fi xation will be taken out when the
diseased segment achieves fusion.
23.2.2.3 Postoperative Treatment
The patient can sit up and turn over on the bed by
himself/herself on the second day after the surgery. According to the pain relieving conditions
of the incision, he/she can leave the bed and move
about, wearing the waist brace during 2–5 days
after the operation. The brace is supposed to be
worn for about 3 months. Postoperative X-ray
and CT scans are planned in order to evaluate the
conditions of internal fi xation and decompression. The patient is about to discharge in 1 week,
and the radiologic evaluation should be performed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and every year
postoperatively during the follow-up.
The infl ammation parameters and hepaticrenal function needs continuous monitor postoperatively. Intravenous antibiotics are administered
for 6 weeks, followed by oral antibiotics for at
least 6 weeks, until the CRP is normal or near
normal, the ESR is trending down, there is substantial clinical improvement, and imaging studies show evidence of fusion across the previously
infected area. Considering the cases with tuberculosis, antituberculous treatment consisted of
isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol is given to these patients for about 1 year.
Intravenous levofl oxacin in combination with the
antitubercular agents is recommended to administered for 2 weeks postoperatively.
23.3 Clinical Outcomes
The direct lateral lumbar retroperitoneal
approach has the advantage of excellent exposure for thorough debridement of infected disc
from one side to the opposite, even the
destructed annulus fi brosis beside the spinal
canal or anterior border of vertebral body. It
allows removal of the destructed end plates and
partial vertebral body through the working
channel, which is benefi cial to the infected
cases by debriding the necrotic tissues, relieving the nerve root compression, and reconstructing stability of lumbar spine at the same
time. However, this minimally invasive
approach can hardly remove the diseased intervertebral disc completely, especially the parts
herniated into the spinal canal. The lesion of
multiple segments seems to be diffi cult to deal
with due to the limitation of the working channel. There is an increasing risk of approachrelated neurological complications owing to the
possibility of variation of the intrapsoas nerves
when combined with larger abscess of psoas
major.
Shepard et al. has reported a case of medically refractory discitis of L1–2 and L2–3 level
in a patient with multiple comorbidities including hypertension and pulmonary embolism.
Considering that his poor condition would likely
not tolerate a two-level vertebrectomy with
anterior reconstruction, they chose to proceed
with a limited debridement via a minimally
invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas
approach. The L1–2intradiscal abscess fl uid
culture postoperatively was negative for bacteria and mycobacterium tuberculosis. Repeat
lumbar MRI showed a signifi cant decrease in
the size of the fl uid collection. The patient was
maintained in a thoracolumbar- sacral-orthosis
(TLSO) brace postoperatively and continuous
antibiotics. His symptoms relieved obviously,
with ESR/CRP trending down to normal. At
11 months postoperatively, the patient was able
to ambulate with a walker. He reported minimal
back pain and plain fi lms showed a slight kyphosis centered at the L1–L2 level. This case suggested that limited debridement via a minimally
invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas
approach may be an effective alternative to
aggressive debridement for patients with lumbar
discitis/osteomyelitis who was otherwise a suboptimal surgical candidate.

23 Lateral MIS Surgery for Spinal Column Infections
229
A retrospective chart analysis by Madhavan
et al. was performed for ten patients who had
presented with lumbar discitis and osteomyelitis. They all had undergone debridement via
the direct lateral retroperitoneal approach. The
infection involved one disc and the adjacent
vertebral body in nine cases (L2–3 in fi ve
cases, L3–4 in three cases, and L1–2 in one
case), while one case involved two levels (L3–4
and L4–5). Structural iliac crest autograft bone
was used for anterior column reconstruction in
nine cases except in one patient with a large
bony defect, in whom a titanium mesh cage
with morselized autograft iliac crest was used.
Eight patients underwent posterior pedicle
screw instrumentation, two patients did not
undergo posterior instrumentation, and one of
these developed a kyphotic deformity that
received a secondary posterior procedure.
Average follow-up was 680 days. Infection
was eradicated in all patients according to a
history, physical examination, imaging studies,
and laboratory parameters. One patient developed a painful neuroma at the iliac crest harvest site and one patient with a retroperitoneal
hematoma. There were no approach- related
neurological injuries or postoperative surgical
site infection. The direct lateral approach for
the surgical treatment of lumbar discitis and
osteomyelitis allows for thorough debridement
and spinal reconstruction without the need to
mobilize the great vessels, which was considered as an alternative to the open anterior
approach. The authors also recommend posterior instrumentation to prevent the development of kyphosis.
The author applied lateral lumbar retroperitoneal approach for the treatment of single
segment discitis and lumbar tuberculosis,
which has achieved satisfying outcomes. All
the cases were performed this procedure combined with lateral screw-rod or posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. During the
follow-up, the postoperative symptoms and
radiologic features, ESR and CRP, average
pain scores of Japanese Orthopedic Association
Assessment (JOA), Oswestry disability index
(ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) improved
significantly, without any approach-related
complications of vascular and neural injury.
Debridement and bone grafting through the
working channel indicated a definite therapeutic effect for the case with erosion of the end
plate and disc, which has shown the advantage
of minimally invasive surgery. For the cases
with serious bone destruction, it is also feasible to remove the sequestrum and necrotic tissues under the working channel, while filling
the void with structural iliac crest autograft
bone or the titanium mesh cage with morselized autograft iliac crest. The midterm and
long-term clinical outcomes and safety evaluation remain to be seen.
23.4 Complications
23.4.1 Approach-Related Complications
Approach-related complications include vascular, visceral, and neural injury. Since infection
is always accompanied by retroperitoneal adhesion, it is recommended to distinguish cautiously the anatomic structures, particularly the
chord structures, when the working channel is
built. Moreover, the distorted anatomy makes it
easier to plunge the dilators into the soft
necrotic spinal column, which leads to neurological injury or bleeding from a segmental
vessel. Use blunt dissection with fi ngers, and
repair the damaged tissue once the injury
occurs. Advance preparations should be made
to carefully position the dilators and retractor.
Fluoroscopy and neuromonitoring should be
carefully set up to make sure the safety of the
approach. Preoperative MRI and CT studies
were signifi cant to plan the surgical corridor.
The injury of the lumbar plexus presents primarily as transient postoperative thigh pain or
numbness as well as lower extremity muscle
weakness, which can recover within 6 weeks
without any intervention. The pharmacologic
treatment combining NSAIDs, steroid, and
neurotrophic drugs can promote recovery of
neurological function.

230
L.-m. Rong and L. He
23.4.2 Instrumentation-Related Complications
Instrumentation-related complications include
subsidence and displacement of the implants
(interbody fusion cage, titanium mesh cage, and
bone grafts), loosening or breakage of internal
fi xation, delayed fusion or nonfusion, etc. Since
instrumentation-related complications always
lead to reoperation, surgeons should thoroughly
debride the infected areas, take active part in
anti- infection, and select appropriate implant
based on the conditions of the debridement and
spinal stability. It is signifi cant to exhort the
patients to wear brace during the upright posture
postoperatively.
23.4.3 Infection-Related Complications
Infection-related complications include inadequately debridement, spread of infection,
relapse, impaired wound healing, sinus formation, etc. In order to avoid these, surgeons
should thoroughly remove the infection focus
during the procedure and select the appropriate
antibiotic depending upon the antibiotic susceptibility tests of the causative organism, following a combination drug regimen. It requires the
suffi cient anti- infective therapy, including at
least 4–6 weeks intravenous antibiotics followed by subsequently 6-week oral antibiotics
for nonspecifi c infection, while 1–2-week preoperation and approximately 1-year postoperation for tuberculosis.
sick at the same time without night sweat. The
antipyretics could relieve the symptoms to
some extent. No signifi cant abnormity was
found in the physical examination except tenderness and percussion pain on the L2–3 spinal
process and decreased range of motion. The
pain score was shown as follows: VAS for backaches was 7 points while 0 for leg pain, 28 %
for ODI, and18 for JOA, respectively. The
patient presented with repeated fever with body
temperature fl uctuation in 38–39 °C. The blood
samples revealed leukocytosis with an elevated
blood sedimentation rate, as well as the
C-reactive protein. Considering the possibility
of spinal pyogenic infection, we treated with
levofl oxacin, which worked soon after prescription. The surgery was performed after the condition that temperature returning to normal.
Firstly, we debrided paravertebral abscess, the
disc space, and adjacent vertebral bodies of
L2–3 via lateral lumbar retroperitoneal
approach. Then the cages were inserted into the
diseased disc space followed by lateral fi xation
through the same approach. Streptococci was
found in the culture of the focus and the pathology report supported the diagnosis of purulent
infl ammation. With the 4-week intravenous
antibiotics followed by subsequently 6-week
oral antibiotics, the patient recovered well. VAS
score of low-back pain decreased to 1 point,
while no leg pain was reported. Blood samples
revealed no abnormity when he discharged
from hospital (Fig. 23.1 ).
23.5.2 Case 2
23.5 Case Studies
23.5.1 Case 1
A 75-year-old man complained of low-back
pain for 5 months. The pain was worse with
movement and radiated into both side of the
hip. Despite analgesics and physiotherapy, in
the last 2 weeks, the symptoms had continued
to get worse. He developed high fever and felt
A 25-year-old woman presented with progressive low-back pain for 2 years and continued to
get worse accompanied with limitation of
activity. No fever or night sweats were detected.
Considering the physical examination, tenderness and percussion pain around the L1–2 spinal process were reported, while the mobility
of the lumbar spine was detected. VAS score
for back pain was 7 points. Blood samples
revealed neither leukocytosis nor abnormity in
ESR and CRP. Considering the possibility of

23 Lateral MIS Surgery for Spinal Column Infections
ab cd
231
ef g
h
ij kl
Fig. 23.1 ( a , b ) Preoperative plain fi lm demonstrated a
collapsed in L2–3 disc space with a loss of end plate; ( c ,
d ) preoperative MRI showed the destruction of L2–3
intervertebral disc and end plate with low signal intensity
in T1-weighted images, but mixed signal intensity in
T2-weighted images; ( e ) preoperative CT scan indicated
partial destruction of the L2 and L3 vertebral body; ( f )
intraoperative X-ray showed the XLIF cage was inserted
into L2–3 disc space through the working channel; ( g )
intraoperative X-ray showed the lateral screw-rod fi xation; ( h ) the operation of lateral screw-rod fi xation; ( i , j )
postoperative X-ray demonstrated the satisfactory position of the implants; ( k , l ) 2 years after surgery, the CT
scan indicated solid bony fusion in L2–3 disc space
spinal tuberculosis, antituberculous treatment
consisted of isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide,
and ethambutol is given to these patients for
about 2 weeks. And then, we debrided psoas
abscess and adjacent vertebral bodies of L1–2.
Then the bone graft that harvested from the
iliac crest was inserted into the diseased disc
space followed by posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fi xation. The pathology report sup-
ported the diagnosis of tuberculosis infection.
With 2 weeks of continuous antituberculous
treatment and intravenous levofl oxacin, the
patient recovered well and wore brace during
the rehabilitation training. The VAS score of
low-back pain decreased to 1 point 1 week
after surgery. Blood samples revealed no
abnormity when she discharged from hospital
(Fig. 23.2 ).

232
abc d
L.-m. Rong and L. He
gfe
h
ij k l
ponm
Fig. 23.2 ( a , b ) Preoperative dynamic X-ray demonstrated
the instability and collapse of L1–2 intervertebral space with
a loss of endplate; ( c , d ) preoperative CT scan showed the
destruction of vertebral body and the giant psoas abscess on
the right side; ( e ) intraoperative X-ray of the XLIF working
channel; ( f ) lesions debrided from the L1–2 intervertebral
space; ( g ) intraoperative lateral X-ray showed the position
of posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fi xation; ( h , i ) post-
operative X-ray indicated the satisfactory position of the
implants; ( j ) postoperative axial image of CT scan showed
the bone graft; ( k , l ) postoperative CT scan demonstrated the
decreased size of psoas abscess and satisfactory position of
the bone graft; ( m , n ) 1 year after surgery, the X-ray demon-
strated a solid bony fusion at L1–2 level, while the internal
fi xation were posited well; ( o , p ) 1 year after surgery, the CT
scan indicated new bone formation peripherally around the
structural graft in the previously infected disc space, while
psoas abscess was eliminated thoroughly

23 Lateral MIS Surgery for Spinal Column Infections
233
Further Reading
1. Garg RK, Somvanshi DS. Spinal tuberculosis: a
review. J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34:440–54.
2. Zimmerli W. Clinical practice. Vertebral osteomyeli-
tis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1022–9.
3. Landman GW. Vertebral osteomyelitis. N Engl J Med.
2010;362:2335. author reply 2335–2336.
4. Cottle L, Riordan T. Infectious spondylodiscitis.
J Infect. 2008;56:401–12.
5. Verdu-Lopez F, Vanaclocha-Vanaclocha V, Gozalbes-
Esterelles L, Sanchez-Pardo M. Minimally invasive
spine surgery in spinal infections. J Neurosurg Sci.
2014;58:45–56.
6. Fushimi K, Miyamoto K, Fukuta S, Hosoe H, Masuda
T, Shimizu K. The surgical treatment of pyogenic spondylitis using posterior instrumentation without anterior
debridement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94:821–4.
7. Cebrian Parra JL, Saez-Arenillas Martin A, Urda
Martinez-Aedo AL, Soler Ivanez I, Agreda E, LopezDuran Stern L. Management of infectious discitis.
Outcome in one hundred and eight patients in a university hospital. Int Orthop. 2012;36:239–44.
8. Mylona E, Samarkos M, Kakalou E, Fanourgiakis
P, Skoutelis A. Pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis: a
systematic review of clinical characteristics. Semin
Arthritis Rheum. 2009;39:10–7.
9. Ruf M, Stoltze D, Merk HR, Ames M, Harms
J. Treatment of vertebral osteomyelitis by radical
debridement and stabilization using titanium mesh
cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:E275–80.
10. Ito M, Abumi K, Kotani Y, Kadoya K, Minami
A. Clinical outcome of posterolateral endoscopic
surgery for pyogenic spondylodiscitis: results of 15
patients with serious comorbid conditions. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:200–6.
11. Butler JS, Shelly MJ, Timlin M, Powderly WG,
O’Byrne JM. Nontuberculous pyogenic spinal
infection in adults: a 12-year experience from
a tertiary referral center. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
2006;31:2695–700.
12. Kim SS, Kang DH, Yoon JW, Park H, Lee CH, Hwang
SH. Surgical treatment of pyogenic spondylitis with
the use of freeze-dried structural allograft. Korean
J Spine. 2014;11:136–44.
13. Lu DC, Wang V, Chou D. The use of allograft or
autograft and expandable titanium cages for the
treatment of vertebral osteomyelitis. Neurosurgery.
2009;64:122–9. discussion 129–130.
14. Fayazi AH, Ludwig SC, Dabbah M, Bryan Butler
R, Gelb DE. Preliminary results of staged anterior
debridement and reconstruction using titanium mesh
cages in the treatment of thoracolumbar vertebral
osteomyelitis. Spine J. 2004;4:388–95.
15. Dimar JR, Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ,
Hartman MJ, Johnson JR. Treatment of pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis with anterior debridement and fusion
followed by delayed posterior spinal fusion. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:326–32. discussion 332.
16. Friedman JA, Maher CO, Quast LM, McClelland RL,
Ebersold MJ. Spontaneous disc space infections in
adults. Surg Neurol. 2002;57:81–6.
17. Haaker RG, Senkal M, Kielich T, Kramer
J. Percutaneous lumbar discectomy in the treatment
of lumbar discitis. Eur Spine J. 1997;6:98–101.
18. Knight RQ, Schwaegler P, Hanscom D, Roh J. Direct
lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative conditions: early complication profi le. J Spinal Disord
Tech. 2009;22:34–7.
19. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor
WR. Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a
novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody
fusion. Spine J. 2006;6:435–43.
20. Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson JR. Fusion after
minimally disruptive anterior lumbar interbody
fusion: analysis of extreme lateral interbody fusion by
computed tomography. SAS J. 2010;4:63–6.
21. Regev GJ, Haloman S, Chen L, Dhawan M, Lee YP,
Garfi n SR, Kim CW. Incidence and prevention of
intervertebral cage overhang with minimally invasive lateral approach fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
2010;35:1406–11.
22. Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E, Pimenta L. A
radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme
lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly
decompress the neural elements. Spine (Phila Pa
1976). 2010;35:S331–7.
23. Kepler CK, Sharma AK, Huang RC. Lateral transpsoas interbody fusion (LTIF) with plate fi xation
and unilateral pedicle screws: a preliminary report.
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:363–7.
24. Youssef JA, McAfee PC, Patty CA, Raley E, DeBauche
S, Shucosky E, Chotikul L. Minimally invasive surgery: lateral approach interbody fusion: results and
review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:S302–11.
25. Uribe JS, Arredondo N, Dakwar E, Vale FL. Defi ning
the safe working zones using the minimally invasive
lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: an anatomical study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:260–6.
26. Laws CJ, Coughlin DG, Lotz JC, Serhan HA, Hu
SS. Direct lateral approach to lumbar fusion is a biomechanically equivalent alternative to the anterior
approach: an in vitro study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
2012;37:819–25.
27. Shepard M, Safain M, Burke SM, Hwang S,
Kryzanski J, Riesenburger RI. Lateral retroperitoneal
transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine for the treatment of spondylodiscitis. Minim Invasive Ther Allied
Technol. 2014;23:309–12.
28. Madhavan K, Vanni S, Williams SK. Direct lateral
retroperitoneal approach for the surgical treatment of
lumbar discitis and osteomyelitis. Neurosurg Focus.
2014;37, E5.
29. Berjano P, Balsano M, Buric J, Petruzzi M, Lamartina
C. Direct lateral access lumbar and thoracolumbar
fusion: preliminary results. Eur Spine J. 2012;21 Suppl
1:S37–42.
30. Sharma AK, Kepler CK, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP,
Huang RC, Sama AA. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion:

234
L.-m. Rong and L. He
clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year: a preliminary report. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:242–50.
31. Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J. Intraoperative
and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:26–32.
32. Pimenta L, Marchi L, Oliveira L, Coutinho E, Amaral
R. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial com-
paring radiographic and clinical outcomes between
stand-alone lateral interbody lumbar fusion with either
silicate calcium phosphate or rh-BMP2. J Neurol Surg
A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2013;74:343–50.
33. Arnold PM, Anderson KK, McGuire Jr RA. The
lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar and
thoracic spine: a review. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:
S198–215.

Matthew F. Gary and Michael Y. Wang
Adjacent segment disease following lumbar spinal fusion refers to any symptomatic pathology
occurring rostral or caudal to a previous fusion.
The exact etiology of adjacent segment disease is
controversial with evidence implicating increased
biomechanical forces on the neighboring functional segmental unit as well as an intrinsic degenerative predisposition in this patient population
[ 1 – 13 ]. The popularity of posterior instrumented
spinal fusions over the last two decades and an
aging population has signifi cantly increased the
incidence of adjacent segment disease. These
patients can present with debilitating symptoms
from stenosis, instability, and spinal imbalance.
Surgical intervention traditionally consists of a
revision posterior approach with extension of the
instrumentation and decompression [
These surgeries are typically higher risk secondary to longer anesthetic durations, increased blood
loss, an older patient population, and higher rate
of cerebrospinal fl uid leak (CSF) from scar tissue
14 – 16 ].
[ 17 ]. When adjacent segment disease includes
proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), disability
arises from sagittal imbalance. A posterior only
approach to correct this imbalance usually
requires multiple osteotomies, again increasing
the operative risk. Also, an open posterior
approach has the potential to further disrupt and
destabilize the new spinal levels rostral to the construct. Miwa et al. reported on their experience
with posterior lumbar interbody fusions (PLIFs)
to treat adjacent segment disease after a single
level lumbar fusion and discovered that 44 % of
these patients deteriorated again because of recurrent adjacent segment disease [ 15 ].
The use of a minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion for adjacent level disease and proximal junctional kyphosis affords the benefi ts of
being a shorter duration surgery with less blood
loss and almost no risk of spinal fl uid leak
(Fig.
24.1 ) [ 18 – 27 ]. Correction of sagittal imbal-
ance can also be achieved utilizing lordotic cages.
Patients who present with radiographic adjacent
M. F. Gary , MD
Neurosurgery , Emory University School of Medicine ,
Atlanta , GA 30307 , USA
M. Y. Wang , MD (*)
University of Miami , Coral Gables , FL , USA
mwang2@med.miami.edu
e-mail:
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017
M.Y. Wang et al. (eds.), Lateral Access Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28320-3_24
segment degeneration (adjacent segment disease)
do not always necessitate reoperation. Only those
who present with symptomatology such as neurological fi ndings or axial pain are considered to
have symptomatic adjacent segment disease.
Presenting symptoms are the same as found in
235

236
ab
roscopic image showing excellent restoration of interbody height using a lateral cage
M.F. Gary and M.Y. Wang
other degenerative processes of the lumbar spine
and can include: radiculopathy, neurogenic claudication, weakness, and mechanical back pain. A
thorough history and physical examination is
used to determine if the patient’s symptoms
localize to the adjacent segments.
The initial work-up consists of plain radiographs: standing full spine and bending. These
allow assessment of overall spinal balance and
stability at adjacent segments. Given the increased
forces exerted on adjacent segments, proximal
junctional kyphosis can result from loss of disk
height and progressive compression fractures of
the vertebral body above or below the construct.
A computed axial tomography (CT) scan can be
obtained to assess the fusion mass at the previous
operative site, as well as look for any hardware
failure. Finally, a magnetic resonance image
(MRI) is acquired to assess the neural elements.
Occasionally, other studies are needed to enhance
operative planning, such as electromyelography
(EMG), bone densitometry (DEXA) scan, and
diagnostic injections.
If the patient’s symptomatology has been correlated with the adjacent pathology, an operative
approach is tailored to the individual patient. The
risk profi les of the lateral approach versus the posterior approach are inherently very different. The
benefi ts and limitations of the lateral approach are
discussed below. When deciding between the lateral approach and the more traditional posterior
approach for adjacent segment disease, it is important to weigh the risks of each approach with the
patient’s overall goals and risk tolerance.
The minimally invasive lateral approach has
allowed for a direct route to the intervertebral disk
without signifi cant muscle dissection or blood
loss. Patients with multiple medical comorbidities
and the elderly can most benefi t from this less
invasive approach as operative time and hospital
stay is signifi cantly shortened [
26 ]. There is also
the added benefi t to both the patient and the surgeon from not having to dissect through thick scar
tissue to obtain decompression. Of note, the lateral
approach relies upon an indirect decompression,
which has been demonstrated to increase the neuroforamina by up to 57 % and area of the central
canal by up to 143 % [ 28 , 29 ]. This indirect decom-
pression reduces the risk of a cerebrospinal fl uid
leak (CSF) and also avoids disrupting the posterior
elements possibly preventing further adjacent segment degeneration (Fig. 24.2 ).

24 Adjacent Level Disease and Proximal Junctional Kyphosis
a
bc
de
237
cessfully underwent an L3-S1 laminectomy with posterior
instrumented fusion. ( a ) Parasagittal T2-weighted MRI
image showing the neuroforamen ( b ) before and ( c ) after
As with any new technique, the lateral approach
requires special training to become comfortable
with the anatomy and nuances. Also, given the
minimal opening, this technique is highly reliant
upon fl uoroscopy, increasing the patient and surgeon radiation exposure, especially during the
early learning phase. Unfortunately, one of the
more common locations for adjacent segment
disease, L5/S1, is precluded from the lateral technique because of the iliac crest. Also, in some
patients with a high crest, even L4/L5 is not
accessible. One must evaluate the preoperative
lateral interbody fusion. Axial T2-weighted MRI image at
the adjacent treated level showing the spinal canal and lateral recesses ( d ) before and ( e ) after adjacent segment
surgery
anterior-posterior (AP) imaging carefully to evaluate accessibility around the crest.
Previous abdominal surgery, while not an
absolute contraindication to this technique, must
be weighed carefully. Smaller abdominal surgeries can be avoided by entering on the contralateral side. However, larger abdominal or
retroperitoneal surgeries with a high likelihood of
scar tissue in the retroperitoneal space can signifi cantly increase the risk of surgery especially
if the vasculature is scarred down.
EMG monitoring has made this technique
safer around the lumbar plexus. Occasionally, a
patient will have a very anterior lumbar plexus as
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
